The last year has seen major changes at Legal Theory. Two of the journals’ editors—David Brink (Professor of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego) and Matthew Adler (Professor of Law, Duke Law School)—stepped down after years of outstanding editorial work. We gratefully acknowledge their invaluable contributions in sustaining and improving the journal. As each editor stepped down, a new editor stepped in. Connie Rosati (Professor of Philosophy, University of Arizona) began work as an editor in the fall of 2016. In the spring of 2017, Mitchell Berman (Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School) joined the journal.

We diagnose a paradox said to exist for liberal constitutionalism. Constitutional rules seemed to fail to constrain in times of expediency or under conditions of necessity, occasions when constraints might be most needed. From this failure, a form of rule skepticism seems to undermine liberal constitutionalism's claims to govern and constrain official behavior, especially during times of emergency. On closer inspection, we identify three different forms this purported rule skepticism might take: contestation over rule applications, skepticism about rule determinations, or rule cynicism. We resolve the apparent paradox by demonstrating how rule skepticism is either unwarranted or cynically deployed, but in neither case raises a legitimate challenge to liberal constitutionalism.

In a recent paper Christopher Heath Wellman argues that—with some important qualifications—there are no procedural rights. And it's not as if he is squeamish about his examples: even someone who is “convicted” and “punished” by lottery is not wronged—their rights are not violated—if in fact they are guilty of the relevant crime. I respond, rejecting Wellman's conclusion and argument. I also show how the discussion has important wider implications.

This article defends the importance of epistemic safety for legal evidence. Drawing on discussions of sensitivity and safety in epistemology, the article explores how similar considerations apply to legal proof. In the legal context, sensitivity concerns whether a factual finding would be made if it were false, and safety concerns how easily a factual finding could be false. The article critiques recent claims about the importance of sensitivity for the law of evidence. In particular, this critique argues that sensitivity does not have much of an effect on the value of legal evidence and that it fails to explain legal doctrine. By contrast, safety affects the quality of legal evidence, and safety better explains central features of the law of evidence, including probative value, admissibility rules, and standards of proof.